I would be happy with 90 degrees but now I kinda hope it will be 120 degrees.If Carmack couuld help with a pre-warped demo for 120 degrees, I bet overtime when we learn how to warp more software, we will wish it was 120 degrees. Cyber seemed happy with the 110 degree sample unit, so that would be cool also.

I would definitely be up for adding support to my last big game project, and any future games I make.

Great! More software is great.

3dvison wrote:

I would be happy with 90 degrees but now I kinda hope it will be 120 degrees.If Carmack couuld help with a pre-warped demo for 120 degrees, I bet overtime when we learn how to warp more software, we will wish it was 120 degrees. Cyber seemed happy with the 110 degree sample unit, so that would be cool also.

The horizontal FOV is actually smaller than vertical, I think the current one works out to about 90 horizontal, and about 110 degrees vertical. I would love to make it higher, but it would mean a huge weight increase. I will be making wider FOV lens sets available, though, so the upgrade will be there as an option for the people who want it!

Great, sounds good.I still think getting the RIFT out as fast as possible,and not just because I wanted one yesterday, but because, as you can see, people all that much faster can start tinkering with current software and writing new software that is warped for the RIFTs optics.

From a selfish, race-sim perspective (heh), a noticeable vertical FOV could at least be 'written off' as constrained view caused by wearing a helmet!

The larger FOV is what got me interested in the Rift. If it's a trade off between either a large FOV and high resolution then I'd prefer one direction is chosen rather than aiming for a middle-ground. The 1280*800 sounds small enough so I would hope that there's a massive FOV available. 120 should be a minimum.

The best think about this HMD is that it will be modular and we will be able to change the optics or the panels (when a better alternative is available) depending on the intended use. For example: considering the weight reduction, I think 90 degrees should be "good enough" for everyday use... but as a developer, I would consider very useful having other additional lenses (the 120 degrees or even the experimental 270 degrees optics) that I can use for research.

What is the current status of this project? I didn't see a website up and unless I'm missing it I have only heard 'June' as a date. I haven't seen any specs, assembly, driver support, etc. details in one reference. Is there a repository?

I have been researching the ST1080 but the lack of reviews falls under the same purview as a game release without a demo. It screams "sale as many as units possible before word gets out!" That endeavor led me to MTBS3D and your Oculus Rift. I was originally planning on getting something for game development within with-in the next month as the ST1080 should be out in quantity by then, but Oculus sounds at the top of the three reasonably priced units right now and better suited for games with head tracking and upgradable to make it useful for development.

From a selfish, race-sim perspective (heh), a noticeable vertical FOV could at least be 'written off' as constrained view caused by wearing a helmet!

The larger FOV is what got me interested in the Rift. If it's a trade off between either a large FOV and high resolution then I'd prefer one direction is chosen rather than aiming for a middle-ground. The 1280*800 sounds small enough so I would hope that there's a massive FOV available. 120 should be a minimum.

I will try to make some 120+ lenses available, but it would not work as the minimum for most people. It is fine if you mount it to a helmet, sure, but pretty heavy with just goggle straps! And actually, assuming that the horizontal FOV is wide enough, it seems like it might even be better to have higher vertical. It lets you see the ground and sky, and that is huge.

PatrickReddeck wrote:

What is the current status of this project? I didn't see a website up and unless I'm missing it I have only heard 'June' as a date. I haven't seen any specs, assembly, driver support, etc. details in one reference. Is there a repository

No website or repository yet, that is priority #1 right now. Gotta have one up before E3 so people can be pointed there. There is a lot of info spread across a bunch of different threads both old and new, but nothing solid and official.

The status of the project is that the optics design and hardware selection is basically finalized. Assembly and final form factor are still being worked on, though I have several prototype units that you could call finished, so this is pretty far along. Software wise, John Carmack has a demo that works great, and I have a hacked together setup that uses a combo of the IZ3D drivers and Nthusim to get standard commercial games working. If I had the money in my hands right now, I could be shipping in three weeks.

WiredEarp wrote:

Im happy with 90 degree FOV as a minimum. I mean, this is still double everything else out there at attainable prices. Having the ability to put 120+ degree lenses in would be the icing on the cake.

Actually, even "double" is a pretty big underestmation. It is about twice as wide, sure, so if it were the same aspect ratio, it would be 4x the image size. However, it is taller, too! Here is a terrible, "not quite to scale but about right" comparison I made up in MS Paint:

pierreye wrote:

If Palmer can get this 5" 1080p IPS panel it would be great.

Too small, unfortunately. A 5.6" or larger panel is needed, 6" is about ideal. A 7" panel could work, at the cost of making the HMD a little bit oversized. 7" 1080p panels might be our best hope in the near future, though.

I know I said I would post more pics of my various prototypes, but I had to leave them at the lab last Friday before I had a chance. Here is a consolation picture, an HMD I made attached to an ACH helmet!

Some people seem to have more of an issue with the optics than others -- of the dozen or so people that have played with it here, a couple seemed to find it distractingly blurry.

If you are able, it would be good to know if they were nearsighted, farsighted, or suffer from eye problems like astigmatism. Some of those people might be able to fix the problems with an adjustable unit, but it would be interesting if there are some people who just can't make it work properly.

Can't wait to see what the Verge has to say, they are my favorite tech blog out there.

I did a VR demo with the Rift for the Verge today, there should be some public video available tomorrow.

Twice now I have heard comments along the lines of "I am going to be able to tell my grand kids about the day I first experienced VR".

I am really excited about getting kits into a lot of people's hands, because there will be a dozen different takes on form factor, fitting, and adjustment.

John Carmack

OK, now I really do believe it....Not that I did not believe in you PalmerTech all along, but with input from JohnCarmack and an ID demo, it is just at a whole new level now.I do not mean to keep harping on it, but I really do believe, what I said before is true. People will buy the RIFT just to play an ID demo that is coded for it.People have been buying new computers or video cards just so they could play the latest ID offerings for a long time, and it will be the same with the RIFT...Only a whole new form of gaming is about to begin. And the last time that happened, I do believe JohnCarmack was there...Wolfenstein 3D (VR edition) anyone..Ha Ha

That looks like a fun project! The discussion thread mentions it's programmed against a 'SimConnect' API. I haven't heard of that one before. Is SimConnect as well-adopted as the FreeTrack or Eagle Dynamics protocols? facetracknoir is an opensource project; would it be feasible to submit code to the project that allows it to track the HMD (i.e. switch from face mode to Rift mode)?

Or maybe glue some googly-eyes to the visor so that it gets picked up... ?

If you are able, it would be good to know if they were nearsighted, farsighted, or suffer from eye problems like astigmatism. Some of those people might be able to fix the problems with an adjustable unit, but it would be interesting if there are some people who just can't make it work properly.

Will the final units be adjustable? If not, that would be a show-stopper for me...

Oh, and thank you John for backing this with the considerable resources at your disposal. Please convince Palmer he needs to commercialize this device! Seriously this endeavor could take off like nVidia did in the 90's. As you have mentioned before - we're hitting a wall of diminishing returns with graphical fidelity. Immersive gaming is the next big leap and all the necessary technology is coming together at this very moment.

Last edited by brantlew on Thu May 31, 2012 9:49 am, edited 4 times in total.

Congratulations, guys! That was a nice preview. The light weight has me almost as excited as the FOV and price tag.

It looks like the device used in the preview is running at 60Hz. Palmer, is that the same as can be expected in the initial version, or is there a chance for a higher refresh rate?

Thinking about display latency in our engine (and I hope this isn't considered a hijack, just not sure where else to put this and the Rift has gotten me thinking about HMD programming again), I'm wondering if it makes sense to punch a hole for camera control straight into the rendering thread rather than the main simulation thread. Right now what we have is pretty a standard fixed time step simulation thread/interpolated render thread setup, which includes interpolating the camera based on controller input to the simulation. Theoretically, having the motion sensors directly drive the camera on the rendering thread should eliminate (at least) one whole frame of latency...

If you mounted them side by side it would have the same optical design with at least the same if not higher resolution and better aspect ratios. Plus you would automatically gain 2D support as well. Is it mainly software issues of driving and synchronizing the displays - or are there other reasons why this solution is not attractive?

Very cool work Palmer. I found out about it from an article about John Carmack. I just wanted to register my interest in the kickstarter and I look forward to getting a unit to play with this summer.

I've been interested in VR headsets for a while, but only bought my first one (HMZ-T1) at the beginning of the year. It is a pretty cool device, but it definitely has some issues. I've modified mine to mount to a bicycle helmet with headphones, which solved most of the comfort problems, but I can never seem to get the optics just right. I'm happy to see that your device supports such a wide field of view, that was my biggest disappointment with the sony unit.

I'm a software developer and hobbyist 3D animator (using blender). Let me know if there is anything that you need help with.

If you are able, it would be good to know if they were nearsighted, farsighted, or suffer from eye problems like astigmatism. Some of those people might be able to fix the problems with an adjustable unit, but it would be interesting if there are some people who just can't make it work properly.

I have an astigmatism, hope this doesn't rule me out, I've been lurking and looking forward to this HMD since you announced it! Would contact lenses help the people with eye defects?

Last edited by rajveer on Wed May 30, 2012 5:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Congratulations, guys! That was a nice preview. The light weight has me almost as excited as the FOV and price tag.

Thinking about display latency in our engine (and I hope this isn't considered a hijack, just not sure where else to put this and the Rift has gotten me thinking about HMD programming again), I'm wondering if it makes sense to punch a hole for camera control straight into the rendering thread rather than the main simulation thread. Right now what we have is pretty a standard fixed time step simulation thread/interpolated render thread setup, which includes interpolating the camera based on controller input to the simulation. Theoretically, having the motion sensors directly drive the camera on the rendering thread should eliminate (at least) one whole frame of latency...

I am doing that in D3. It has to be disabled during cut scenes and death, but it makes a contribution to the quality feel.

If you watch that video, the guy(Ross), just had his mind blown...LOLI think he likes it, much, much, more than he is letting on. Unless he is a world class actor, when he takes of the RIFT, you can tell by the look in his eyes, that he had a real blast using it. The look was, "what the hell was that, I've never seen anything like that before"...

I hope I don't sound like some JohnCarmack fanboy because I am not. Just always liked his work.But I knew when he first posted on these forums that somthing was gonna go down.This is such a huge help to Palmer and the RIFT..Can't wait to get a RIFT and any ID software that will run on it.

I agree - my favorite part is the end of the video when the HMD is removed and you can see his facial expressions as he tries to re-orient himself to the real world. The classic rubbing of the eyes, etc I remembering experiencing my first time I experienced Dactyl Nightmare so many years ago lol!!!

Last edited by space123321 on Thu May 31, 2012 8:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

Hey Palmer,Won't you need to be taking pre-orders soon. Don't you need the money to start buying part's...Not so gentle nudge.Also, what tracker was JohnCarmack using ? Is it a tracker we can buy ourselves somwhere easily ?

I am giving private showings with it all day Tuesday at E3. There might still be a slot or two free; journalists can contact Bethesda if they want to try to get fit in.

I am trying hard to make sure they all understand that the display is Palmer's, but I'm sure there will be some mis-representations that I built the whole thing...

I will have a Sony HMZ-T1 there as well, which I may use as a side-by-side comparison to show the difference in FOV. The color and pixel switching times are still much better on the Sony, but for a gaming experience the Rift is in a class by itself.

BIG congratulations to PalmerTech to this device and also thanks to John for providing the marketing boost!I am waiting for the Kickstarter project and looking forward to spend some hard earned cash to get this kit! And that is something when i say it, since i've kicked my VR tech junk addiction quite some time ago...

BUT i am afraid the same problem still remains as with all the rest of 3D / VR devices that ever came out . Acces to content. I would say that i've spent 90 percent VR time tuning and configuring all the stuff, including getting the games etc to work and 10 percent actually looking at or playing something.Even if i really wanted to "consume" i've spent time on the desktop quitting programs, navigating through menus etc. That was never the experience i craved, i wanted to dive in and walk on a beach, then go to elsewhere to play a simple game, then zoom to some gallery. Simple stuff, seamlessly interconnected that you can spend hours in because you are always exploring something new or going to your favorite places.All the devices that came out always came out with some drivers and content, which kinda work but you were limited by several factor - including lifetime of the device producer.

I think what needs to be created is this:1, Open standardized format + toolchain to create content and publish it online in an interconnected way - There have been plenty tries but the right balance between features / compatibility / ease of content creation have never been struck yet2, A Viewer of the standardized format with a totally open API for 3D devices - hack in you gyro, powerglove, just whatever3, A Portal to all this content, including other 3D content types like youtube 3D videos etc. The Portal itself must be created in the same technology so the users can really zoom seamlessly between the available content.

I always realized that individual bits and pieces of this have been out there. The VRML/X3D stuff back then wasn't actually conceptually a bad idea after all. It could all have been done using that but the format got fragmented by individual implementations (like HTML heh) and the device support wasn't there. The content creation tools were really bad too.Interestingly enough, the content is still out there online (it is all extremely lame by todays standards) and i had once build a proof of concept of the 3D Portal on top of Google App Engine. I had a lot of fun doing that back then but never got all the pieces working together. I was very serious about this idea and we actually did a pitch of it to Nvidia people, just before they started to sell their 3D glasses thing. Back then i was thinking about using Unity 3D as the core technology, because i loved the content creation tools. But it had other problems.

Anyway, sorry for the rant, i haven't visited MTBS3D for a long time and it all just started flowing out when i touched the keyboard. I am really looking forward to PalmerTech's device - my money is waiting. I might even revisit the old ideas and start working on them once the device arrives.Good luck!

Yeah, ironically we should have our own Second Life island and be meeting up there instead of forums - us being the perfect target audience and all. Too bad SL support for this kind of thing is really lame. They even killed the "puppeteering" interface that would have been so cool to develop for.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum